RFC 65: Adding UUIDs into ListBlock

[kaedroho]

Rendered

[kaedroho]

Assuming accepted given the thumbs up, and no objections when I presented it in the team meeting a couple of months ago

[zerolab]

Discussed this in the core team meeting and we're all for this. Will require release notes for anyone that works directly with the values

[allcaps]

I like this. All blocks have a type and id, so this would make list block consistent. 👏

[Stormheg]

I agree with the approach and don't have any questions or comments.

Thanks @kaedroho and @jacobtoppm 👍

[gasman]

Looks good to me too. I think it's important that we keep the preserve the outward-facing behaviour of ListBlock (i.e. iterating over it gives a list of values without any extra wrapper), but that's been accounted for here. As @zerolab mentions, this does need to be covered in the release notes for anyone with existing project code that works directly the JSON representation and expects to find the old representation.

Just wondering what this should mean for streamfields in API responses? If we're sticking rigorously to the policy of no breaking changes without an API version bump, then we really ought to normalise them to the old representation at the point of output. I'm inclined to say that's overkill in practice though.

[kaedroho]

Thanks, everyone for your feedback!

Just wondering what this should mean for streamfields in API responses? If we're sticking rigorously to the policy of no breaking changes without an API version bump, then we really ought to normalise them to the old representation at the point of output. I'm inclined to say that's overkill in practice though.

This shouldn't be too difficult to do by overriding get_api_representation. But we probably should make it easy for people to get IDs in their APIs too, maybe a keyword argument on ListBlock / meta to allow people to switch to the new representation in the API?

[kaedroho]

Moving to FCP since it looks like all discussions are resolved and people are happy with this change!

[Pomax]

It's been a few weeks, hopefully this is still moving ahead? =)

[kaedroho]

@Pomax Yep, I think this has had a long enough FCP period now!

[Pomax]

Nice, I missed this landing! Is there a corresponding implementation issue on the wagtail repo that folks can subscribe to, in order to follow the progress there?

[kaedroho]

Hey @Pomax I believe this is actually being implemented right now by @gasman and @Tijani-Dia. Should be ready in the next couple of weeks

[Pomax]

Awesome! Still, do accepted RFCs in general turn into implementation epics that people can then subscribe to?

[zerolab]

@Pomax there is no hard rule for that, but usually they will be followed up by a PR (or series of PRs). For this one, see wagtail/wagtail#7737

[Pomax]

gotcha, thanks.

[gasman]

PR implementing this RFC: wagtail/wagtail#7741